clearspira wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 9:39 pm
Careful. Those rules are there to help your side too.
Yes, I'd prefer the old-fashioned
talking filibuster, like on KOTH, where you gotta stall the vote with words, and thus demonstrate more of who you really are, what you stand for.
Well, shocker of shockers, with today's gilded age criminal cohort in Congress, they just want a slip to sign off that loudly proclaims, "Yep, I'm totally doing a filibuster, it's all filibuster here on Capitol Hill, yep, bob! Hey, wanna go grab lunch?"
To me, the talking filibuster is absolutely American. To remove it or condense it is not.
BTW, to anyone who even bothered to do a lick of research on the rise of Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini, you'd instantly see these are not those times. Daily violence, more often than not stretching into two, three, four, five, perhaps even six times a day was the norm to those turbulent social conditions. Greater tools and archiving helps us cut down on crime rate. The media outlets want to make you think these are those times, with rampant crime and hate everywhere, rising rapidly, as that's all that fills their hearts and those of their corporate masters.
Really. The daily life of the early 20th century is what breeds the Superman fantasy in Action Comics #1. Someone snatches a woman's purse, there's little you can do, never mind DNA tests, so the common sex abuse we're told about back then cannot be repeated these days, to that extent, at least. It's just appalling what people had to endure back then. And it's a miracle we came through it. You'd expect us to have blown ourselves up in the '60s. It's why younger people take the
Star Trek ideal for granted.
This is the thing you lefties really need to understand. Why was there such pressure on women back then to marry? And that no-fault divorce wasn't widespread like today? Not out of deep-rooted misogyny, the way you'd think. Or religious brainwashing. No, it was just the deep love men have for women is understated, like today, for they wanted to make sure they were subject to less pain, suffering, hate crimes, and the like which was life back then. Strength in numbers. Men love women, so we want to try to make sure they don't hurt. But nowadays you'd call that homophobia, since it excludes gay people.
We have far more looking up than we do down and we need more perspective. Here we are debating over identity issues that cannot possibly be substantiated by outsiders, when back then they were so worried about trying to find ways to stop a criminal element from just grabbing some poor lady down a dark alley and... well, use your minds. And there'd be no way to prove it back then.
These are not those times.
I'm off, later.
